The more rational side says that this is an effect of the internet creating naturally forming echo chambers, causing the participants to become more and more polarized in their views.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is definitely a side effect of the internet itself. People with common values used to be separated by geography. Now I can communicate with fans of almost anything, no matter how minute, across the entire world. These communities form from like-minded people that slowly become more and more insular, since it was a community created for the purpose of expressing certain thoughts, so different opinions, and dissenting discussions are not welcome, seen as raining on their parade, invading their "safe spaces" if you will.
Then the whole Us vs. Them mindset takes over, and those people with the different opinions are the enemy. Happens with political parties, social causes, etc. I've seen LGBT "safe spaces" rail on about how gay men must be gay because of the patriarchy and their hatred of women. It's so weird. Eventually all these little groups just keep eating themselves, sacrificing the most dissenting opinions in return for recognition as a remover of those who would obstruct their cause. Repeat ad nauseum.
Also, from the article:
COMMENTS WILL BE BACK. FREEDOM LASTS FOREVER.
"Except when we find the discussion a bit too hot to handle, then we turn them off. Could happen again, who knows. Those terrible Gamergaters might strike again."
I've put altogether far too much thought in how to combat this phenomenon, and I have yet to come up with a good solution. It seems like the internet leads to extremism, when you would think from the initial concept it would be the opposite. Now I can talk to anyone, instantly, at absolutely no cost. I would expect that to lead to more rational communication, where you get large numbers of people who disagree with each other conversing together. Instead, you end up with billions of tiny communities that are completely insular.
The best I can come up with is to encourage people to make a conscious effort to talk with people who disagree with them, and not just to prove them wrong. Try to include people you think are "wrong" about a topic you care about in the conversation, as long as they can keep from being shrill and yelling about it. The worst case scenario is you end up changing your mind about the topic. The issue is this doesn't scale. I can do it personally (and I try to, as painful as it is sometimes), but how do I get more people to do this?
Your second paragraph is, I think, the only way we can combat debate extremism on the internet. Changing your mind is not necessarily back-sliding or folding, but can be the synthesis of this view-challenging information into a new, stronger and hopefully more informed and worldly opinion.
...as long as they can keep from being shrill and yelling about it.
Isn't this what's usually referred to as "tone-policing?" Is that a valid complaint? I have no problem with it, as I don't think you can have a reasonable discussion if someone is being shrill and antagonistic. But, I have been accused of tone-policing in private discussions and then all conversation just stops.
It's complicated. On the one hand, telling someone they're being shrill is very much an ad hominem argument. On the other hand, at some point it stops getting a discussion and just becomes people yelling at each other.
I really don't have a perfect answer. All I know is a see more and more people yelling at each other to score points with their side rather than trying to convince anyone about the topic at hand, which is making public discussion go downhill.
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is definitely a side effect of the internet itself. People with common values used to be separated by geography. Now I can communicate with fans of almost anything, no matter how minute, across the entire world. These communities form from like-minded people that slowly become more and more insular, since it was a community created for the purpose of expressing certain thoughts, so different opinions, and dissenting discussions are not welcome, seen as raining on their parade, invading their "safe spaces" if you will.
Then the whole Us vs. Them mindset takes over, and those people with the different opinions are the enemy. Happens with political parties, social causes, etc. I've seen LGBT "safe spaces" rail on about how gay men must be gay because of the patriarchy and their hatred of women. It's so weird. Eventually all these little groups just keep eating themselves, sacrificing the most dissenting opinions in return for recognition as a remover of those who would obstruct their cause. Repeat ad nauseum.
Also, from the article:
"Except when we find the discussion a bit too hot to handle, then we turn them off. Could happen again, who knows. Those terrible Gamergaters might strike again."
I've put altogether far too much thought in how to combat this phenomenon, and I have yet to come up with a good solution. It seems like the internet leads to extremism, when you would think from the initial concept it would be the opposite. Now I can talk to anyone, instantly, at absolutely no cost. I would expect that to lead to more rational communication, where you get large numbers of people who disagree with each other conversing together. Instead, you end up with billions of tiny communities that are completely insular.
The best I can come up with is to encourage people to make a conscious effort to talk with people who disagree with them, and not just to prove them wrong. Try to include people you think are "wrong" about a topic you care about in the conversation, as long as they can keep from being shrill and yelling about it. The worst case scenario is you end up changing your mind about the topic. The issue is this doesn't scale. I can do it personally (and I try to, as painful as it is sometimes), but how do I get more people to do this?
Your second paragraph is, I think, the only way we can combat debate extremism on the internet. Changing your mind is not necessarily back-sliding or folding, but can be the synthesis of this view-challenging information into a new, stronger and hopefully more informed and worldly opinion.
Isn't this what's usually referred to as "tone-policing?" Is that a valid complaint? I have no problem with it, as I don't think you can have a reasonable discussion if someone is being shrill and antagonistic. But, I have been accused of tone-policing in private discussions and then all conversation just stops.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's complicated. On the one hand, telling someone they're being shrill is very much an ad hominem argument. On the other hand, at some point it stops getting a discussion and just becomes people yelling at each other.
I really don't have a perfect answer. All I know is a see more and more people yelling at each other to score points with their side rather than trying to convince anyone about the topic at hand, which is making public discussion go downhill.